I am at a point in my career where I can be selective and only consider 100% remote roles. I am also a manager, so I understand some of the management challenges that lead people to dismiss or be skeptical of the claim that remote work can be just as effective as office work.
One thing I will admit: It is harder, as a remote manager, to manage low performers or people who show signs of disengagement. You can get more out of an office worker who lacks intrinsic motivation than a similar remote worker.
But that's not a knock on remote work itself. You just have to have the right people on the team, just as in any other circumstance.
I agree with you a fair assessment is warranted. Dismissing the downsides of remote work leads to unrealistic expectations/conversations.
That said,
> You can get more out of an office worker who lacks intrinsic motivation than a similar remote worker.
Is this because for an office worker it's harder to disguise the lack of motivation? Or are they pressured into going through the motions even if they don't feel like it? I wonder if this is a good thing at all.
Let me explain: as a fully remote worker, there are days I don't feel like working. On those days, I'll slack off. My work won't suffer because on the longer term I'll achieve my objectives; I'm just not wasting time pretending to work when I don't feel like it. My mental health is better as a result. This wouldn't be possible if I was at the office, because this isn't a socially acceptable mode of working.
As a remote worker and manager, I see you. When folks on my teams are not feeling it, I tell them to just let me know they're taking the rest of the day or the day and I've got it covered. People are not machines to grind widgets out all day long, some days will be very productive, some days will be useless. That's okay. I'm optimizing over long periods of time. I care about the mental health and wellbeing of those who report to me, and I will absolutely help them find work elsewhere if it isn't working where we're at.
None of this work really matters in the end, so no point in getting too bent out of shape about it. The work needs to get done to a defined standard, but overly focusing on high levels of consistent "engagement"? I don't drink the koolaid and neither should the folks who report to me. We show up, we grind, we go home. And that's fine, that's what the money is for.
I wish you meaningful work if you can find it. Most work is not; self awareness and full context is important in how we operate when interacting with others professionally.
If you die tomorrow, are fired, or laid off, you will be replaced. If your company fails, you will move on to the next job. Per the US BLS, approximately 20% of new businesses fail during the first two years of being open, 45% during the first five years, and 65% during the first 10 years. Only 25% of new businesses make it to 15 years or more. Broadly speaking, ~90% of startups fail. So, I also wish you luck.
Very few of us are saving or improving actual lives or legitimately changing the world for the better (deep gratitude to those folks). The rest of us are not. I am sorry to be the messenger.
I think this has more to do with workers who are only interested in doing the least amount of work they can get away with.
Even highly motivated workers are going to have off days that are less productive, but the average level of output will be higher.
Low performing / marginal workers, in my experience, tend to do their best work when they feel like they are being observed. Providing that sort of motivation is more difficult when they are remote.
> it's harder to disguise the lack of motivation? Or are they pressured into going through the motions even if they don't feel like it?
As a personal example, it's the latter for me. If I'm having an off day WFH, it's a lot easier to delay meetings or shuffle things around than in an office. I've pushed some meetings back, slept in a few more hours and make up that time either later in the evening or on some other day. Or on the other end may cancel later meetings to just relax later on if my brain is scambled. A lot harder to justify in person. You're there, why can't we meet? why are you nodding off? etc.
>I wonder if this is a good thing at all.
Probably not, but modern work places aren't really designed around "what's good long term for employees". Especially not the US where we barely have vacation days, a lot of passive (or active) aggression around the recent-ish ma/paternity leaves, complaints of burnout are seen as a weakness instead of a proper problem to resolve.
They are fine churning through you in 2 years, laying you off, and training fresh talent later. Even if that approach is horribly unsustainable for building talent and increasing efficiency.
I think in the best case scenario, a person being physically together with their team will genuinely feel like working more often than they would if they were alone in their room.
I also agree with you that people in the office are more susceptible to straining themselves due to social pressure.
I'm not sure how these two balance out. It probably depends on the specific people.
It's hard to find a metric that can't be gamed. Otherwise we would not have this issue in the first place. You would also get a lot of office politics and an unfriendly work environment, because everyone would want the projects that would have the highest visibility.
All to often there are invisible "heroes" who quietly fix issues, prevent bugs and makes sure everything runs smoothly. They are simply not as visible as someone who creates high profile features and firefight bugs introduced by their coding. From the management point of view they are hard workers that work late fixing issues.
Management can only recognize what they can see. The quiet dev who just makes things work is a huge value to the company, while the "bro" that master the political game gets all the recognition.
What metrics can they use that are not quickly gamed?
You can probably see some variation of the logic in your comment on here on a daily basis.
I argue that it's management's job to know what's going on well enough that "invisible heros" don't exist. If they can't, what exactly are they managing?
I've been in the situation you describe and I just find another job, what may be invisible to your current manager may be obvious to your future one.
*Bonus content: I suspect most of the time the reason people don't "see things" is for political/human reasons more so than they are blind. You probably didn't seem as interested in your bosses new Tesla as he would've liked or something.
>What metrics can they use that are not quickly gamed?
You're right, goodheart's law. But I do think the current metrics can definitely be improved.
We can definitely identify "quiet heroes", but people look towards others like them. For management, that's exactly those "high visibility", constantly reporting hype men (who can be high or low performers). Introverted IC's can still perform miracles, an introverted manager who spends most of their times in meeting would definitely struggle. Even if those skills are not necessarily what is needed to perform optimally at some roles, that is what managers seek out of everyone. Because that's how they got to where they were, after all.
There are ideas out there, but ultimately nothing will change until we can at least admit these biases first.
> I am at a point in my career where I can be selective and only consider 100% remote roles.
I assume “point in career” you mean “around the block for a while”. My kid graduated and considered only remote jobs, and after a couple of years when the big-company employer tried Return to Office he jumped to a startup. That’s just an n of one, but these days anybody can consider it.
My company is not 100% remote, but that’s only because we have a chem lab with some special instruments and other equipment. But if/when you don’t need to be in the lab, remote is the default.
Onboarding is different. The work you would put into onboarding directly, you mostly put into documentation and architecture so people can achieve goals without having to have a mental model of the whole application. Try to design your application so you can part out components/endpoints/modules to people on Fiverr - you code is decoupled and documented well enough that short term contractors can come on, look at an example/template and fill in the blanks for the current requirements without a ton of direct support. When you're at that level, onboarding basically reduces mostly to a quick task overview/ticket discussion, a few DMs over slack and a code review.
It is. It's almost impossible to fake performance since there's only one parameter to measure: work / result / etc. Good performers will produce better / more result, more initiative, and more responsive.
However it's also easier for a bad, micromanaging managers to make their team appears low performant. That's basically the trade off.
I disagree. Someone who's always getting Slacked with requests and keeps unblocking people won't be doing the work you're measuring, but they're helping 20 people do their work in half the time.
People who get unblocked by Pat and as a result accomplish their work are very likely to talk about the latter and forget/not mention the former when it comes to performance review time.
Yes, and not because they don't care about Pat, but because they don't see the other timeline where Pat didn't help and it took them a week to figure it out (or wait for Pat to spot their issue).
This seems pretty unlikely to surface. Saying "oh you do that by doing these 3 things" in Slack, or going off and fixing a broken thing in a test environment, might save someone else hours or days, but they won't report somewhere "this person saved me hours", particularly if it happened 3-12 months ago (whatever the review cycle is). Combing through emails and commits is also just pretty unlikely to happen.
* The impact is actually much smaller than you initially think
* You're not vocal enough about that, or that's just one-off thing (high performers usually pretty consistent)
* You're in a bad environment where good work isn't getting recognized
I've did exactly that and my coworkers keep know how that benefits them, so it's not impossible. Anyway, being vocal on what you're doing or achieve in remote work is also crucial, if the environment cannot discover your achievement easily.
I think the point is that saying "there's only one parameter to measure" elides all the difficulties of measuring the different ways people can be effective in the workplace.
>here'll be work record somewhere, either emails, commits (if they're software engineers) or system audit trails.
Sure, it'll be somewhere. Will a manager bother looking around for that when it comes time to layoff? Do they even care about that to begin with? Are they even close enough to the product where they bother to look at something like a commit log? Half may not even look at the dang Jira points they keep forcing teams to keep up with.
It comes down to care, and to be frank (in my experiences) almost no manager cares enough to take that time. They have a lot of other stuff on their plate, after all. They aren't rewarded for retention, they don't necessarily get punished if the companies underperforms as long as they can rationalize a scapegoat. why try to retain these low key "glues"?
>if you ask those 20 people during performance review, it'll clear as day.
My performance reviews tended to be personal, in my experience. a skip manager/director may ask about my direct lead, but other than that I can't recall ever calling someone out (good or bad) during one.
It comes down to the same metric, are those managers/directors going to take the time to ask everone about who they think is an unsung hero?
> You just have to have the right people on the team
you put it nicely, the flip side is most of companies/teams may not have the luxury to have all 100% right people, they may get disengaged and some of them may come back engaged again. the challenge here is remote work makes it relatively harder to get some of them back on track.
Yes, that's true. If it were as easy as "just hire high performers" then everyone would do it. And even if you do hire high performers, helping them emerge from a period of disengagement is tough.
So perhaps one way to express my position is that when it comes to remote work, you almost have to treat yourself as an independent contractor or consultant, even if you're technically an employee.
But when many companies barely respect the employees to begin with, they shouldn't be surprised when the employee disengages and always has an eye on the next opportunity. There will always be other semi-unavoidable issues like pay, location, and personal passions that get in the way, but having some intention to retain and nurture your talent will go a long way. Something that has very clearly shown to NOT be the case these last 18 months or so.
I've never met a manager that was good at these things. In my industry they just look for any defect and then start applying pressure, until they get someone new, or you change.
Pretty atrocious policy when disability, mental health and trauma can come into play. It essentially relies on inducing despair. I know for a fact much of big tech is like this. Atlassian has been called out for it.
Agree with this completely. I have found it consistently challenging to create the structure necessary for low performers to turn their work around. We have also had issues with people actively working for other companies while turning in poor work, spending most of their time freelancing, etc. It is hard to correct that level of effort when they think it is "good enough". Sadly the whole overemployed phenomenon is ruining it, not because they work multiple jobs but because they are disingenuous about it.
>not because they work multiple jobs but because they are disingenuous about it.
it's definitely a situation with no one coming out looking good. employees should be honest, but bad companies really screwed the pooch being hawks trying to preside over every minute of their lives. messaging them in dead hours of the night, micromanaging breaks, being worried when they leave about "leaking secrets", pressure to work overtime (e.g. stealing their time for no extra pay). There's no way in high hell I'd tell my workplace anything happening outside of it unless it involves extended leave.
But I do think either way that's it's unacceptable to have two "full time jobs" with shared hours, unless all 3 parties agree to it. I have some long term freelance work I'd continue on the side, but that's specifically because the hours are low and I can fit them into evenings after conventional work hours.
It's indeed true you probably can't get someone who's completely disengaged to be particularly productive. They'll do the bare minimum to make you go away but mostly just phone it in. These people probably should be encouraged to leave anyway, if nothing else for their own sake. Odds are they're in a late stage Office Space-type burn out and could really do with a change of scenery.
That said, there are personalities who genuinely benefit from hands-on management. Some just don't have a lot of initiative and will just do nothing until they're told what to do next.
> That said, there are personalities who genuinely benefit from hands-on management. Some just don't have a lot of initiative and will just do nothing until they're told what to do next.
Even though I had this team all the time who are pretty engaged, lot of people are not motivated and a lot of them cannot be ever motivated enough. They had a childhood that killed it.
Until we have 40% unemployment, these people are working under certain CEOs. After some easy deduction, lots of CEOs have to decrease/kill the Home Office for these people if this is true what parent commenter wrote.
Every time this comes up I'm struck by the same thought: do these cats measure _anything_ their people do? And what in the world happens when someone takes off for two weeks to go on vacation?
The solution to all this is very simple. Management needs to hold everyone, including other managers, accountable for measurable output. These are usually based on key performance indicators (KPIs) and are semi-standard in many industries these days. From there, you don't have to care how, when, or why anyone does anything, just as long as they hit the target.
This also has reaching ramifications for everything. People are no longer stressed out by working under ill-defined objectives or nebulous directives. Remote work is now palatable, since things are now results-focused rather than means-focused. Under-performing employees are now easier to discharge with cause, and identifying top performers is dead-simple. Reports are now easy to generate, sometimes without human involvement, so nobody can fib to the CEO. And all that applies to managers too, which I think we can all appreciate.
In contrast, a workplace that runs on vibes and gut-checks will have the drama cited in the article. The whole org relies on a near co-dependent level of trust, leading managers to have anxiety attacks when they can't put eyes on things. Accountability is less about facts and more about feelings. Nobody has a firm grasp on how the company will make that quarterly objective, but we're all going to "work hard" and "do what it takes" anyway. It's all well and good for a startup of 20 people, but it's miserable for an army of 200 or 2000.
Even in-office, we shouldn't be conducting performance reviews on a gut check or how happy you make your boss. It should be down to setting measurable goals, gathering supporting data through the year, and assessing the results at regular intervals.
That _sounds_ good, and they've been trying to do that since long before Covid forced them to try the grand WFH experiment, but it's based on very specious reasoning. KPIs are not only easy to game, they _force_ you to game them even if you're trying to actually get something done. Not to mention that if a business could be reduced to a set of quantifiable KPI's, the entire management chain could be replaced with a spreadsheet.
>if a business could be reduced to a set of quantifiable KPI's, the entire management chain could be replaced with a spreadsheet.
we may start seeing that next decade with all the hype tech is trying to inject into AI. It'd be some nice schadenfreude to have the people replacing workers with these machines have themselves replaced by fancy programs that can generate metric reports faster and with less (but far from zero) bias.
I remember when I first started working for a BigCorp. We were trying to decide on the timeline for some project, I can't remember what. But it was about 6 months long for about 20 people. So about 21,000 hours total. I remember thinking, that this number of 21,000 hours must include vacation time as a deduction. And that BigCorp knew what the estimated amount of sick time, dentist appointments, etc, must deduct from that estimate, based on past years. That they knew if it was going to be a bad flu season. That they had done studies of their estimates and knew what the actual completions were versus the starting point. They someone, anyone, knew what the actual work output of BigCorp was.
Man alive, no, hard no. Laughably, no.
It was eye opening for me. Not a single living soul at BigCorp was measuring anything and all of them were too jaded to even think that if they did measure anything, that it would make any material difference. Every single person was faking it.
While this sounds good on paper, it's very hard to do on practice.
You can "easily" assign KPIs to the company as a whole or to business units (and hopefully you pick the right ones, as other commenters pointed out). But the more granular you get, the harder it is.
How do you assign KPIs to an individual person? Sales sounds easy. But what about finance roles? Software developers? The cleaning staff? Office administrators? Then you need to make it really specific for each person. Should the KPIs for a Junior Frontend Dev be different to those of a Mid or Senior? What about a Data Engineer? And MLOps Engineer? DevOps? How do you measure the exact output of a Creative Designer? And UI UX designer?
Its VERY hard to do what you suggest, and the typical result is that people mend up being measured not on what really matters but only.on what could be quantified easily for a spreadsheet.
While it's absolutely true that KPIs or other clear, measurable metrics of success are objectively better than having no such metrics and just going off of vibes and gut-checks...
...it's important to remember that:
a) People who are bad at creating KPIs can absolutely still make them ill-defined and nebulous.
b) KPIs do not always measure the things that actually matter.
c) Indeed, it's (unfortunately) all too common to have KPIs measure only the things that matter to the people making the KPIs, and not the things that will actually make the organization successful. (For instance, making the stock price a KPI, whether directly or indirectly, through targeting specific visible results that are likely to improve the stock price while having disproportionately low benefits for the actual core business.)
d) Even if the nature of the KPIs are chosen well (ie, they're measuring the right things), the numbers being targeted for them can still be wildly unrealistic and lead to unnecessary stress.
e) Goodhart's Law[0] applies whenever you're creating metrics. You may need to either actively combat efforts to game the metrics, or rotate the precise things being measured periodically to ensure no one has the opportunity to optimize their output too well for a specific metric to the detriment of actual productive output.
TL;DR: KPIs and other ways of clearly communicating and measuring success are a necessary but insufficient component of a healthy workplace.
The hard part about remote is collaboration outside of meetings is hard. Chat is soul-less and leads to a lot of misunderstandings with tone. Video is too formal. Phone is interrupt. For the past 6 months we've been using a walkie-talkie app that transcribes and it's pretty magical. It feels like it's solved some of the issues with unstructured collaboration. Plus the bonus is you can add anyone to a discussion and they can catch up by listening to previous messages at 1.5X
> Chat is soul-less and leads to a lot of misunderstandings with tone.
Chat isn't soulless.
Chat being async has benefits over conference calls.
> Video is too formal. Phone is interrupt.
Work lacks cheap interrupts, which is not a remote-only problem.
In my most recent position, when working from home, I've made a habit of writing to people on chat if I can bother them for 5-20 minutes. It works great. I have typically interacted with at least one customer and 2-3 colleagues during a day at home.
But I can only interrupt certain people. Having sat in the office with them before, we have built a relationship.
The interrupt is where walkie talkie really shines. Instead of asking to bother someone, where they now may feel obliged to engage, you just walkie talkie them with what you want to discuss. They can listen in real time or they can ignore and then listen ore read when they're available. Perhaps it's because our team is global that this works as timezones are hard. The expectation is you manage your notifications, so the sender never has to worry that the message they're sending is bugging you at 1 AM.
Can you elaborate on the difference between DM'ing someone with "Hey can I call you about problem X/Y/Z?" I'm not sure I understand the benefit of the walkie talkie solution. To me this sounds as or more annoying as a landline.
Sure. So if you say can I call you about X/Y/Z, you're asking them to stop what they are doing and listen to your monologue in real time. With the walkie talkie, you hit talk and send them your monologue. They can listen in real time (one-way) if they are available or can listen to your audio + read the transcription (later). This puts them in control of when and how they consume and respond. The added benefit is they can relisten or re-read before responding. I find it puts me in control of context switching
Two things differentiate it from regular chat for us. One is it's mobile. They have a web product, but we don't use it, we just use the mobile, so we talk into it as opposed to type. I personally get up and walk around to talk into it. The second is the audio. Listening is just different than reading. Re-listening is awesome.
I still dont get it. That's just precisely the same as sending a instant message but it has an audio option?
I've tried doing audio messages before but i find it unbearable - both to listen to them and record them. I just love async text; i want nothing more than email/github
I haven't done walkie talkies, but one thing at a previous job that worked great was an "office hour" meeting. There wasn't necessarily anything urgent, but for an hour a day there'd be a low-priority period to come in and talk about anything from a persistent issue that needs a lead's eye, to watercooler talk.
It feels like a simple gesture, but it solved many issues at once:
- unless something urgent was scheduled over it, it was a period where you'd be sure you wouldn't be interrupting the lead, and are free to ask questions. You never felt like you were wasting their time, it's already baked into the schedule.
- There's a lot less friction just unmuting a mic and talking to a group than pinging a channel or sending a DM, but also a larger guaranteed of a prompt reply.
- it was an informal meeting half the time, so it was a good way to semi-organically team bond compared to leaving a huge paper trail of sports discussion in a team channel. It also means it's very easy to invite others in if their help is needed. A few times, it'd be a "talk" period where we'd invite another team and they use the time to share knowledge of what they are working on.
- even if you had nothing to help or help out with, it was a great way to shadow the work of others and get a feel for how the team overall is doing. The most underrated aspect of an office space is hearing all this tribal knowledge in the background as you work, or during a break. This helped a bit to bring that back.
- Breakout rooms. If there was 2-3 parallel discussions forming, we can simply divide the meeting up instead of going through that weird song and dance of prioritizing discussions (hopefully not dropping it entierly) or booking another room.
Some companies went the complete opposite extreme and more or less made it an obligation to stay on such a "meeting".
Text can solve some of these issues, but if the walky-talky was anything similar to our office hours, I can see the appeal. It could be a generational issue, but you just don't get much "idle chatter" in formal chatrooms in my experience. Some people absolutely love that and lets them work more focused. Others can start to feel isolated from the team and the mission, so that socialization can help break the ice.
We tried the office hours. It was my most dreaded meeting of the week. Others on the team shared the sentiment. The biggest issue is, it was at an inconvenient time for everyone. No one wants to "hang out" at 8 AM or 11 PM or 4 PM. If too many people showed up we all just sat there awkwardly. If not enough people showed up, we sat there awkwardly. We tried music, or doing some activity together. It always felt forced. I cringe just recalling it.
Sorry to hear that, I can definitely and easily see it going wrong, so it was important on my team to emphasize
1. this was completely optional. it was a daily timeslot but we didn't go every day. We were more than free to schedule other meetings over it as it was the lowest priority.
2. Timezones will always be weird, but fwiw ours was at 3pm and slotted for an hour. Usually we could go over if there was a particularly thorny task but we respected everyone's time. Towards the end of the day but not quite around the point where we started to check out for the day.
3. The time should hopefully feel productive in some way. We never did any kind of "team bonding exercise" that'd fit more into some party icebreaker. we were professionals, and outside of some very specific hobbies members shared (e.g. half the team loved music production and would occasionally talk about sound design topics) I'd say 80% of the "active" hours were focused more on getting unblocked from some tasks. I think that's why it was important to frame it as "office hours" and not "social time".
4. It was absolutely okay to have quieter days. There was no pressure to speak out or pretend to be engaged or whatnot. After the first few weeks we'd normally just start with no video on and it'd be a small voice chat. There were days where 1 or more members just cut out early (and since it was a 4-6 person team, if half or more weren't engaged and the rest weren't stuck, we'd just not do it). There were others where it was just maybe 5 minutes of small talk and people just stayed in the ambience. It was common for at least one person at any time to be muted, so again: no pressure to engage. It was time for us to utilize.
Maybe it simply doesn't work for you, but I wouldn't cast off the entire idea just yet.
No doubt there is a learning/awk hump like any tool. At first it was like why do I have to listen to this 4 minute voicemail. Yikes. But now it's like ok, listening to this 4 min monologue at 1.5X is better than a phone call that I may get stuck on for 20 minutes or worse a 30 minute meeting scheduled in 2 days that's free on my cal right now, but will totally kill my flow state on that day...
I have a ton of chats in game groups, but I've never had it feel active in a formal setting. If you're not in a specific feature channel talking with veterans about issues they can at least start poking at, it's pretty dead. There are times I want to help but am clearly out of my wheelhouse. And then when things do get deeper it usually turns into a DM and that channel goes quiet again.
"noise" on such a chat is much more persistant than in an office, so people tend to not make small talk on such channels, except in off-topic channels. But if I'm being honest I don't wanna browse an off-topic channel at work. I got work to do. That's where the soul starts to leave. The way a company slack works is just very different from some informal (or even formal, non-company) discords.
>Chat being async has benefits over conference calls.
Sure. a paper trail and seachability on slack has saved me many an problem that I couldn't just google. Sometimes without pinging anyone. Sometimes by pinging someone I'd never otherwise meet to say "hey I hit the same issue, is there any progress/workarounds on this issue?" Threads are really nifty ways compartmentalize tangential discussons. Some people (especially tech workers) much prefer to think and write up their suggestion than try and speak it out on the fly.
But I also get that these async benefits ultimately cost more time. A quick 1:1 will always be faster through speech than text, even for someone that can type 200+ WPM (I'm maybe 100, albiet very inaccurate). larger groups is where chats devolve into chaos and noise, and that's when a proctor for a call/live meeting helps coordinate/drive discussion. And as mentioned, tone/body language is absent. They are both just tools, no better than each other as a fork is better than a spoon.
>Work lacks cheap interrupts
Lot to break down here that I won't go into, but yes I fundamentally agree. There is no such thing as a "cheap interrupt" for a creative worker (and yes, tech is a creative process in many ways). You always need to understand that an unplanned interruption is likely costing an hour of creative thinking and consider that before doing so. Many people don't. This is more or less (should be) built into a lead's time when assigning their workload.
With all that said: there are sometimes truly urgent matters where a prompt response is needed. That is definitely where office works shines unless the worker is out for lunch. you never know if a worker who "ignores" a message didn't see it, had their phone die, has chat off/muted, etc. But that's probably a factor a lot of director+ levels face regularly, so it's a mentality passed down to the workers who rarely need to be called on a dime
Back in the days of face-to-face conversations, I don't ever recall a _spontaneous_ conversation that wasn't just a random complain-fest that nothing useful ever came out of.
Yeah. There is a lot of that. My faves were someone coming by with a random thought that they needed to think through with someone. Almost nothing ever came of it, but the rabbit hole of exploration was fun
Video chat also has enough of a delay it short circuits a lot of collaboration thought forming. Creative discussions go from free flowing back and forth to queued up saying of pieces with little interjection.
I find screen sharing easy rather than hard. Someone wants input, they share their screen and we work it through together. When it's done or on track again we have a social chat before shutting down the meeting software and get back to lone work.
I've noticed teens using snapchat to just send quick videos. Just one sentence and then send. Is there anything like this for work, maybe where I can do a really fast screen recording?
In 2008 or so I worked for a consulting company where most of the workers were remote. Eventually, they opened up an office where I lived. We were encouraged (required?) to come into the office a few days a week. We free parking, table tennis and a cooler stocked with pop and beer.
My teams were always remote but I found the social aspects to be beneficial.
This was basically sort of my experience wren my company turned hybrid
I'm sure I might have some undiagnosed attention issues but it became supremely hard to concentrate once at the office because of the open office plan and people constantly distracting me with questions or requests (I don't begrudge them this though). I had to essentially monopolise one of the office mini conference rooms to actually do any work. It got to the point of 3 days of the week essentially being close to useless because I'd get more done once I was back home. Not helped by the company hiring across the country and not having all the staff at office which meant we were still teleconferencing all the time
The latest salvo in the RTO war is reposts of stupid TikTok and Xhitter videos of people bragging about goofing off the entire time while they WFH.
That’s a sign of either a shit manager, over hiring, or bullshit jobs (jobs that you think you need but you don’t).
It still happens in an office except instead of baking or lounging they are fucking off on the Internet or creating make work to look busy but not actually creating value.
> It still happens in an office except instead of baking or lounging they are fucking off on the Internet or creating make work to look busy but not actually creating value.
One thing that should certainly be considered is the externalities associated with on-premise work as more roads, transit, infrastructure, emissions, etc, is required. Taxes should probably be lower for companies embracing remote work.
Taxes only in theory pay for those things. In reality lots of borrowing from the future, and inflation, pay for them as well, so proportionally it's not that much.
Frankly, a 2021 opinion piece doesn’t tell you anything about the state of remote work. So much has changed in the last three years. CEOs and companies have adapted, and in my anecdotal experience, lots of employees as well. Notably those who were once bullish on full remote, would like to see some form of hybrid setup if it makes sense.
>those who were once bullish on full remote, would like to see some form of hybrid setup if it makes sense.
interesting, so many of my peers are full on the remote train. I guess it depends on the age of the workers? I know for sure I haven't heard any one of my coworkers > 35 ever preferring hybrid to WFH.
My peers (similar age bracket) are the same. That’s not to say there aren’t downsides to remote work; of course there are. But on balance I don’t know anyone who would willingly go back to in-office or even hybrid.
Count me as anecdotal evidence in the 35+ bucket of those who went from full remote to hybrid and highly prefers hybrid (after a decade of full remote).
Having a thriving office has been a breath of fresh air for when I want to see people. The key is it being optional and up to employees to decide what's best for them.
I am starting to think that part of the issue is 'one size fits all' approach that we centered our society around. I genuinely hate hybrid. I would rather have either full remote or full office, because hybrid messes with my routine and sleep pattern.
Unfortunately, employees choosing their preferred mode means more headaches for employers ( they want to track it somehow ).
I know what I prefer. I know what is possible. As humans, we do not agree on what is the 'right' way. And in US, employers used to hold all the cards ( which is part of the reason they are praying for a recession ).
The problem is that that doesn't really work. The people working in the office don't get the benefit of in person social connection if others aren't coming in, too. Either you have people coming (win for the office people, loss for the remote) or you have people working from home (the reverse). Leaving it up to everyone to work it out on their own doesn't really solve the problem.
That being said, working it out "per team" is generally reasonable. I've had hybrid stints, and I always coordinated with my team so that we all came in on the same day. Then we could do the social thing together at the office.
There is always a fraction of people who will chose to go to the office. That's enough to have social connection. These persons do not have to be on your own team.
The last 10 years or so I have been working on teams splitted in 3 to 5 different countries, and now in 3 different continents. In that case you are effectively working remotely even when your are working in a company's office.
Can't say I agree with that. Seeing "anyone" is not the same as seeing the people you're close to (work closely with, know well). It certainly doesn't bring me the same mental benefit.
It is not the same but having teams split in different timezones has other benefits and it is often desirable to work that way. One example: on teams handling operationnal roles having teammates in different timezones being primary responders avoid being on call outside of your office hours.
From what I've heard, the key differentiator is the plan/concept, whatever you wanna call it, that went into the hybrid setup. If it's just an office where everyone can come in whenver, you will face all the - almost cliché - problems: people being stuck in virtual meetings while being in the office, only 20% of your team being in the office on every given day, etc. etc
So if you have a manager that really manages your in-office experience, hybrid is seen as preferred by my peers.
The best setup is that my organization builds an office that is a 10-15 minute walk from my existing home and I come in whenever I want. And whenever I decide to come in, everyone else does too. Until that happens I guess I'll just have to settle with fully remote.
I don't much see the value of going to the office on a whim unless I know other people will be there, and that they'll be interested in collaborating on something in person. When I do go to the office, I'm largely working remotely with people not in the office. For me, it's been that way since I got my first dev job in 2014.
The point is this is essentially what upper management is doing. They aren’t going to wave a wand and have a national housing crisis fixed and high cost of living areas be suddenly more affordable to mid level developers. Moreover certain cultural changes, like mothers staying in the workforce, mean it is going to get more difficult and more expensive to get workers back to long commutes.
The poster is creating a purposefully difficult situation to indicate the lack of interest they have with returning to office. In other words, they’d only return to office in a fantasy world
I should have better hinted at my psuedo-sarcasm. I do find meaningful in-person interaction and collaboration are valuable for personal, professional, and mental reasons. However, the real beneficial interactions seem to happen only infrequently, and when they do I don't think that what we have to give up for the slight chance to realize those moments to happen a small percentage of the time are worth the squeeze (work/life balance, commute times, etc.). Hybrid situations in my experience only end up providing the worst of both worlds as everyone isn't in-person at the same time.
And everyone else decides to come in on the days they do. But hey, they said the “best” (fantasy) case so let them dream! That would be my best case too!
I've been "bullish" on it for more than a decade, and worked as a developer full remote since 2019, with roughly one or two office days per month at most when employers have insisted on it.
The company I work for now is fully remote and has been since it started. We have two to three meetups per year. Project leaders and CEO do roughly as many trips to customers and prospects per year.
When we hire and bring in consultants this is one deciding factor, that people are willing and able to work remotely.
To me, if I were to demand that someone spends time on a commute, then I'd also want to pay for this time. I much prefer that they don't commute and I instead get work out of it, and that they have a short distance between work and family or hobbies.
> Notably those who were once bullish on full remote, would like to see some form of hybrid setup if it makes sense.
Within my social group I don't know anyone that agrees with this that isnt working a job that already could not be remote so this never affected them.
Personally, I like the idea of Hybrid but I don't need it by any means. I do it at my current job because we have an office but if we did not have one I would not miss it.
I go in one day a week, but that was also my choice. I was not told I had to do it, if I wanted to stop going in I am still classified as a remote employee.
The fact is, I am more productive at home than in the office. I have less distractions talking to coworkers, I am comfortable in my space, I am less incentivized to want to leave because I need account for the trip home.
When I WFH I will hop on later in the day to check in on something, I am online more hours, and just the week by week output is higher.
Sure I have the distractions of home stuff, but again more hours. If I need to take a break I can go play a game for a few minutes and feel far more refreshed than I would in the office. I don't feel drained by the end of the day.
There is value in being seen by colleagues, but that is something that can be addressed virtually and there are full remote companies that find solutions to this.
Side Note: My cat deciding to come and sit on my lap while working is a pretty good motivator to get some work done.
I’ve been thinking recently that a lot of the pathologies in tech work culture come from the fact that a lot of the most successful tech executives are “wunderkinds” - people who have an extremely rare combination of incredible talent AND incredible drive - who want to only work with people like themselves.
The upside of this is that if you are such a person, as an employee you’ll be amply rewarded. I’ve worked with a number of such people at several of the big tech firms and they are recognized and compensated like the unicorns they are (such people could easily go start their own businesses if they wanted to be entrepreneurs, so they have to be rewarded lavishly to keep them as employees).
But most people aren’t Elon Musks or Jeff Bezoses or the like. Most of the people I have worked with are talented and motivated but not nearly so far out on the right hand long tail.
And motivation waxes and wanes for most people; most people have balanced lives that include lots of time spent not working for someone else.
When I see pathologies such as RTO (which is always combines with making the offices more shitty with hoteling and such), and performance management practices reminiscent of Roman decimations, I see wunderkinds who are unable to accept that most people aren’t like them.
>Remote work is seen as a threat to many CEOs simply because of their fear of change and resistance to progress.
No. This just is false and extremely lazy thinking. CEOs do not "fear change" or "resist progress", these are absurd motivations to ascribe to thousands of people you have never met and it goes counter to what actually happens. CEOs change things, they like to change things a lot, they also love "progress" as progress is the only way to expand.
What CEOs fear isn't "change", they fear that if employees aren't physically tied to an office, they aren't mentally tied to it during work. They fear that employees will neglect their duties and communication will get harder. Whether they are wrong or right is irrelevant. But if you aren't even willing to ascribe to someone the ability to think deeper than "change bad", then all your arguments are irrelevant as you are arguing against a man made of pure straw.
maybe we need tackle this from a totally different perspective.
tie the performance to rewards monthly, no more stable monthly salary other than some base salary, you get paid each month based on your results, the manager can focus on how to itemize the tasks and set expectations, instead of how to watch out low performers.
the better you perform, the more you earn, if the produce is not good for a while, you're let go so you can focus on your other freelance jobs.
yeah this is rare a common approach, but something needs to be changed to cope with remote jobs.
I think the position lacks nuance, but I can easily undermine it. If anything, in person work favors people, who rely on relationships rather than skills. Remote is almost the exact opposite of this as it requires a verifiable result.
I did not claim that mine was right or nuanced, but that OP' claim was easily subverted with similar claim. As for the shoulds, I think a lot of people are afraid of working remotely IF they are held accountable ( I am willing to accept not everyone has the same level of focus, follow through and so on ) . But that is the fun part, management is either unable or unwilling to learn how to manage remote workforce so from a 'slacker' perspective, it is, likely, an ideal habitat.
Why would they be afraid if management can't wrap their heads around it.
But, and I may have mentioned this on this very forum, that is a management failure.
I don't think a May 2021 article – before widespread vaccination even made return-to-office policies possible, and before the tech layoffs – is the best starting point.
Okay, calling CEOs that demand a return "bad" and "fearful" is a provocative take, but the article doesn't back up these assumptions. Much less does it actually explain the reason why bad, and only bad, CEOs "fear" remote work.
With, for example, Apple enacting RTO, one has to wonder whether the author would go so far as to say that Tim Cook is a "bad" CEO who "fears" remote work.
In the article the author does call out not doing research or at least cognitive bias toward research that agrees with RTO. They provide examples like Citrix who have been doing this for years. I would agree that a CEO who doesn't look at all the research and just does what Apple and Amazon do because they should have "done the research" is a bad CEO. Especially if the reason the big companies did it was to paint what would otherwise be layoffs in a way that they don't have to disclose to shareholders. Of course these "bad" CEOs may be doing this too. That just makes them bad to employees which is kind of a unspoken truth...
My employer and many others started RTO in July 2020 with a playbook from a White House lead "return to work" committee. I wouldn't say it was made possible by vaccination. Many CEOs absolutely are fearful of the new environment created by WFH.
I can't really agree with the idea that a vaccine made return to office "possible". I was only sent home (mandatory WFH in my case) because the local government told my employer there was the possibility of liability if they had me keep coming in the office. At this point, plenty of people were already getting sick and some were dying. That didn't motivate my employer to close their offices. The government and legal counsel did.
We still had country wide lockdown just a few months after a +90% population wide vaccine uptake in my home country.
Omicron opened up society, not a single other pandemic measure and that includes masks.
On another note.
With EU countries being so loud about green transitions I would have thought encouraging WFH would have enormous environmental benefits.
There is a plethora of green fees on every single transportation fuel source that we have come to depend on.
Whats greener than not clogging up the roads at all ?
Wonder why EU simply does not ban mandatory in office attendance for work that can be done from home, unless you can show that it is detrimental.
WFH school teachers for example. Remote learning for children was a catastrophe.
I wondered the same thing, and I assume the key detail is "can be done from home", because implementation, monitoring and enforcement of something like this could be pretty harmful for businesses and employees. Imagine having to document why you need your employees in the office for certain types of meetings, but not others.
as someone who's been developing software for 25 years, software development workers are the worst when it comes to the "i know everything" mentality heh. I've always felt new college grads should spend 2 years in a small, eat-what-you-kill consultancy. There you'll learn that your direct deposit isn't a given, you don't produce then you don't eat. Also, another important thing you'll learn is that writing code is maybe only 15% of the effort to make a company work and keep the direct deposits coming.
High-performers will perform regardless of location. If they are constantly unblocking people and being pinged they might have some lags in deliverables and the reason for that might not be as clear as if they were in office and everyone can see them being tapped on the shoulder and being distracted.
Those that lack internal motivation/sense of urgency might perform better on-site, but you as a manager might need to micro manage them. Is it worth it? I’m not sure. The employee and manager will most likely not enjoy the situation, esp if it goes on for a while.
Remote work should just be for call center type jobs (where the feed of work is consistent); sales people that constantly visit clients (which doesn't happen much now ); or extremely talented superstars.
For everyone else that has a bad commute and wants to be home, they should consider retiring or get one of the jobs above.
If people can't don't 5 days in office, they should move to a 4 day work week and get 80% of pay.
I don't know why I have to commute 90 minutes just to open AWS consoles, terminal tabs, Microsoft teams and Outlook. Then any communication I have with my team members and leaders must be written before I can do anything anyways.
Do I just have to sacrifice 5% of my lifetime to corporate gods? Because I gladly sacrifice more, and there is an opportunity to negotiate for better mutual terms.
Let me counter by saying in-office work should be just for poor performers who need to be watched, or socialites who like to pretend to work but maintain their role by being popular with the right people.
One thing I will admit: It is harder, as a remote manager, to manage low performers or people who show signs of disengagement. You can get more out of an office worker who lacks intrinsic motivation than a similar remote worker.
But that's not a knock on remote work itself. You just have to have the right people on the team, just as in any other circumstance.